Transport space usage compared

Traditionally, a lot of transport planning as focused on the movement of vehicles through road space, whereas contemporary thinking is moving towards looking at the number of people which can actually be moved through any given space. In the wider sense, movement space must also include space for active travel (walking and cycling) as well as for rail tracks or other high quality mass transit provision.

As far as the Plastic Planners are concerned, the idea of this setup is to show in very simple terms how many Lego people we might be able to move through any particular corridor.

There are various comparison of travel space which have been done using photo set ups (especially to show the space needed to move a certain number of people), and these comparisons often quote movement in terms of thousands of people per hour through any given point.

Rather than quote in such large numbers, I wanted to scale this down to the very basic starting point of moving one Lego minifigure (person), and then show how more efficient modes can move more people through the same space.

Which modes are considered?

At the most basic level, any comparison of space usage and transport will start by looking at three major types of movement – active travel (mainly walking and cycling), public transport or transit (from shared taxis up to high-speed trains, but in this case just a bus lane and a metro) and private motorised transport (cars and taxis).

For this set up, the focus is on an urban area, so train really means a subway or metro. For longer distance services, the figures will change a little, as they will for the road usage.

In order to make this comparison workable, it’s best to stick to land-based transport, because ports and airports would show a very high intensity of usage, whereas the actual routes taken by ferries and aircraft would have a much lower distribution, even if they were not actually using dry land at the time.

These comparisons are also just looking at the movement of people, so any consideration of movement in a “general” traffic lane would need to ignore vans, trucks and any other kind of commercial, service or utility vehicle.

Within each mode, there is also some considerable scope for variation in terms of how much space each vehicle might take up, how many people can be carried within it, and then perhaps most crucially how much space is taken up by the gaps between the vehicles?

If there is one factor which is much less relevant, then it’s the typical speed of each vehicle. This is largely a comparison about moving people within urban areas, since it also includes walking and cycling. In order to compare longer distance journeys, walking and cycling would have much less relevance, and then for longer intercity trips, there would also need to be some kind a comparison with flying, and then perhaps even more focus on different types of train.

So within this urban setting, different types of cars do take up differing amounts of road space, but there’s much less variation in the gaps between cars. Also, if the average occupancy of each car is just 1.5 (that’s a UK figure), then it doesn’t really matter that much a car has 4, 6 or even 7 seats, since most of these are going to remain empty.

Mass transit is also far from 100% space efficient, since most railway lines operate well below the theoretical maximum capacity that the tracks could bear, many trains are just 2 or 3 carriages, and although commuters will always complain about them, no train line actually operates at 100% of capacity 100% of the route 100% of the time (and nor should it, for obvious reasons).

In order to come up with a comparison that is useful, I would need to look at the possible scenarios which are being compared.

The starting point is the well circulated graph, which actually dates back to 1991. However, there is no reason to think that any of the fundamentals of changed since then – average car occupancy rates are largely the same, and the way people would walkoff cycle through space remains the same. Whereas there is been a phenomenal amount of Metro building since this date, the actual maximum capacity per line has only changed slightly, based on improvements to signalling and some systems running slightly longer trains. However, if there is one major change, it is the emergence of bus rapid transit, particularly in South American cities.

In order to justify this comparison, I think there are 3 key figures which could be looked at:

  • Theoretical maximum capacity – the number of people who could be moved through a space if every mode was used in the most efficient possible manner.
  • Actual maximum capacity – the busiest known corridor for each mode.
  • Typical usage – a comparison figure which is actually relevant to urban areas today.

Theoretical maximum capacity

The most intensively used Metro line in the world is line 14 in Paris, which has a train every 90 seconds, or 35 trains per hour. It is unrealistic to expect any major improvements on this figure, due to the limitations of signalling and the ability of trains to stop in an emergency, and also due to the amount of time taken for passengers to get on and off at each station.

In theory, Metro stations could be built with separate platforms for boarding and alighting, as is the case in a small number of locations. However, this will be problematic at interchange stations where passengers might want to change from one train onto another one behind it that uses the same tracks, but is going to a different destination (on a Metro line which has branches). However, based on the potential for a small time-saving with this arrangement, it is suggested that a Metroline could be built at some point in the future which could handle one train every minute.

Which modes to consider?

  • Taxi
  • Car
  • Bike
  • Bus
  • Walking
  • Train (metro)

what isn’t considered?

This comparison makes no account of the speed of travel, simply the ability to move people through a fixed point.

It’s also been limited to a selection of comparisons which can be rounded to a simple number of Lego people, and I’ve then rounded it further because it was a very close fit to a pattern of doubling. This means that it doesn’t include every single variation of bus provision, nor can it include a comparison between different train types.

For the same reason, motorbikes and scooters are not included in this comparison.

“But I can drive faster than I can walk”

This is a question for another comparison. If traffic is moving like treacle, then you won’t just be moving slower than you can walk, but you’ll also be making walking and driving difficult for everyone else, because you will be taking up the most road space. Of course, most traffic does move a little bit faster than treacle, even in a plastic fantasy land. But the starting point of this comparison is simply about how to move large numbers of people through a narrow amount of space. Ultimately, whether it’s a large crowd of pedestrians or a fast commuter train, the people still have to pass through the imaginary line that is measuring these counts!

This article only considers movement of people, not freight.

Train (metro)

The longest subway trains currently in service are on the New York subway line X, and these have 11 coaches. On some subway systems, the coaches are slightly shorter than might be used on a mainline railway – this means that the tunnels can have sharper curves. Some European high-speed services are formed by joining to 8 coach sets together, whereas locomotive hauled passenger trains could have a rake of 20 coaches or more.

Capacity is increased further by using double deck trains, and these are common on many North American commuter services, as they are on the regional networks in the countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands and France. However, double deck trains are undesirable on a subway network because they would significantly increase the dimensions of the tunnels. Even on a rapid transit network that was largely on the surface, or even on elevated tracks, double deck trains would still have limitations in terms of how quickly passengers could get on and off the platforms from the upper decks. Because of the space taken up by the stairs, double deck certainly doesn’t mean double capacity; on the French TGV, it’s more like an increase of 45% over a single deck service. In terms of theoretical maximum capacity, the potential for double deck trains is not included.

In theory, subway trains could be just as long as any other type of train, assuming that they are being considered for a new line, rather than for an existing route where platforms might not be long enough (this is a common problem on many parts of the London Underground). However, very long tube trains would be undesirable, for the simple reason that many journeys on subway systems might only be for a few stops, so having platforms which were 400 m long (as would be needed to take a double TGV), could mean that in some cases the platforms were almost as long as the distance to the next station! For the sake of this comparison, a maximum theoretical train length of 12 carriages is used.

The maximum loading capacity for a railway carriage would theoretically be reached by quite literally turning it into a cattle truck and having no seats at all. On mainline trains, facilities such as toilets would also be removed, and the assumption would be that there would be no buffets or any other kind of catering. However, building trains in this way would be completely undesirable, and even if many people do stand for much of their journeys, there must always be some seating as a basic accessibility requirement.

Capacity could be optimised by only using flip seats, but if this was the case, then the assumption would be that passengers who were already seated would then stand for the busiest part of the journey so that other people could get on – this in reality is unlikely.

The maximum typical capacity of a subway type train is therefore reached when a small number of seats are provided, often simply with rows of seats on each side and then a large standing area in between – this is the standard configuration on London overground type trains and more recent “subsurface” stock.

Some capacity improvements can also be brought in by using wide gangways between carriages. On the London Underground, where older stock has no connection between carriages, opening up the train in this way can increase capacity by around 20%, whilst also making it easier for passengers to move around and find seats as and when they become available.

Walking

These figures are based Oxford Street in London, as provided by TfL (Transport for London). Their claim is that Oxford Street is the “busiest pedestrian street in the world”.

Given that there is an intense political furore unfolding right now about the future of this street, and plans to remove all motor traffic from it, including buses, this is a good enough place to start. Oxford Street will also have two stations on the new east-west Elizabeth line (a regional metro similar to the RER in Paris), which opens later this year.

Bus/tram

We know that a conventional single decker bus, as used in most places throughout the world, can carry around 60 people if everyone has a seat. Take out some seats so that more passengers can be squeezed in at peak times, and the maximum capacity of a single decker bus goes up to about 80 people. This will include space for wheelchair users and prams, as well as for some luggage.

In the UK, and in a small number of other locations, such as in Hong Kong and in some German cities, double-decker buses are used to increase capacity. However, as with the example of double-decker trains above, a lot of space ends up being taken up by the stairs, and these can also cause a significant delay in loading and unloading passengers.

The most effective way to maximise the capacity of a bus is to use an articulated or “bendy” bus. These buses can have multiple articulated sections, especially if they are running on their own dedicated right-of-way, where there aren’t any concerns about conflict with other road users, and in particular with cyclists. In terms of capacity, there is little difference between an articulated bus and a tram, so for the purposes of this exercise, they are both treated together.

The most heavily used busways in the world are both in tunnels – the Lincoln Tunnel and Hong Kong harbour tunnel respectively. There are 2 fundamental reasons why these busways are used so intensively – firstly, since nobody wants to get off a bus in the middle of a tunnel, there are no delays due to stopping, and also, because the number of river or harbour crossings is inherently limited, traffic from a wide area can be funnelled through these locations.

Both of these busways have real life usage in excess of 600 buses per hour, or one bus every 10 seconds. Based on the length of the bus and on stopping distances, it’s unlikely that capacity in either of these locations could be significantly increased, because even with “platooning” (see the car capacity section), they would still need to be sufficient separation between the buses in case any bus in the “chain” needed to stop suddenly. Also, at this level of capacity, the length of the bus more of an issue than the separation – check that.

However, a bus rapid transit system needs to allow buses to stop to load and unload passengers. Unlike a subway system, a bus rapid transit system can quite easily incorporate the facility for buses to overtake each other, either because some buses might spend less time at the stops, or simply because an express service could move past the slower services at some of the stops. In the very highest capacity systems, such as the trans-Millenio system in Bogotá, the busways actually operate with 2 lanes in each direction, so the faster buses can move past the slower buses at any time. However, adding a 2nd such Lane also means that a significantly larger amount of road space is needed for the system, and the comparison here is between one lane of usage, so for the purposes of this post, it will be assumed that the lanes themselves are single carriageway, but that it is possible for buses to pass each other in the stations. This space isn’t included in the calculations, nor is any platform space included for the calculations about trains. This is largely just in the interests of simplicity – a surface railway line would also have embankments and cuttings, whereas any underground railway technically takes up no space at all, other than access to the stations. However, roads also take up space in many different ways, including space on pavements taken up by signage gantries, barriers and then also slip roads, and a full assessment of road space should also consider how much space is needed for parking at each end of the journey – however, this is kept out for the sake of simplicity.

It might be reasonable to suggest that a triple articulated bus, which can hold up to 250 passengers could run up to once every 15 seconds, allowing time for access and egress at the stations, and also assuming that the busway operates with minimal delays at signals., If they are used at all. This isn’t entirely unrealistic – many South American systems do operate with total grade separation, typically in the middle of a major highway.

As with subway systems, rapid transit buses can be configured with a relatively no a relatively low number of seats, and at peak times, it’s entirely reasonable to assume that every bus will run full or almost full.

One bus every 15 seconds would constitute for buses per minute or 240 per hour.

240 buses per hour with a capacity of 250 passengers would represent 60,000 passengers per hour.

Cycle Lane

We know that there are cycle counters in Copenhagen which regularly count as many as 35,000 cyclists per day at the busiest times, typically late in the summer as university students return.

However, there is still more of a seasonal aspect to cycling down there is to other modes of transport. This is often wrongly attributed to the weather, which is a factor, but which doesn’t actually stop people cycling – in cities which provide decent facilities, cycling is always year-round, even in the frozen winter, because the cities will keep their cycle path networks free of snow. A far more significant factor in determining cycle Lane usage is the University terms time, because students are more likely to cycle than any other sector of the population.

However, even though Dutch cities don’t tend to broadcast cycle counts, there are a number of places where usage is measured, and there are cycle paths in cities like Groningen or Utrecht, where in excess of 20,000 cyclists per day per direction are measured throughout the year. So how about on an hourly basis? Typically, peaktime traffic might account for around 50% of journeys on a trunk route in and out of the city centre, and if the peak period occurs over 2 hours, then the busiest hours might each account for around 20% of the total, assuming that most of the peaktime loaded is in one particular direction.

This would give us and actual usage of a cycle lane of around 4000 people per hour. However, a cycle lane does not have to be as wide as a general traffic lane in order to be effective. In particular, a cycle lane which is configured for bidirectional usage could have cyclists riding 2 or 3 abreast in one direction, whilst still also allowing people to ride single file in the other direction.

Maximum capacity

It is a common complaint of critics that the newly installed cycle paths in London, especially the new cycle path which runs east to west across the city is so often “empty”. Yet the figures also show that this cycle path carries more people than all of the 3 general traffic lanes which run alongside it. So why is this? Yes, London traffic has been moving like treacle for the last century, and yes, the general traffic lanes are heavily constrained by the limited capacity of the junctions, but don’t cyclists also need to pass through the same junctions? This is why the cycle path do indeed so often look empty – cyclists can pass through junctions very quickly, because they don’t have to leave large gaps between each other, and also because it’s very easy for cyclist a bunch together through junctions.

This means that even the busiest Dutch cycle paths will often look empty, because even at 4 or 6 or 9000 people per hour, a cycle path is still well below its maximum theoretical capacity.

To work this out, we have to look at the sort of volumes of people who can use a cycle path when there is a special event on, and then to consider how many people could use a cycle path if everyone was bunched together with only a minimal gap between each cyclist:

Consider:

  • A standard bicycle is around 1.2 m long.
  • At a typical urban speed, bicycles can move very close to each other, and in some places, the wheels can almost overlap.
  • Let’s allow 2 m per bike.
  • The comparison for this purpose is to consider the maximum capacity per lane per hour, and for all of the other modes, this is a driving lane 3 m wide or equivalent.
  • A 3 m wide bicycle lane would comfortably accommodate cyclists riding 3 abreast in the same direction (the bidirectional option the bidirectional factor is not considered in this theoretical maximum).
  • It is reasonable to assume that this cycle lane might have a “continuous green” signalling priority – this is used successfully in Copenhagen.
  • To make a fair comparison in an urban setting, it would have to be assume that sooner or later, even with a continuous green, the cycle lane would need a junction with another cycle lane, and that at some point, priority would have to be yielded at a major intersection. However, if the question is about theoretical maximum capacity, then these junctions could also be separated, as is the case in some Dutch towns (e.g. Harlton).
  • At an average speed of 20 km/h, each bicycle would be moving 0.3333 km/m or.
  • At an average speed of 18 km/h, each bicycle would be moving at 0.3 km/m or 5 m/s.
  • If each bicycle required 2 m of road length, then 2.5 bicycles per second per row would pass the given point.
  • Since there would be 3 rows of bicycles, then 7.5 bicycles per 2nd would pass the given point.
  • This would work out as about 500 per minute.
  • This would work out as 30,000 per hour.

Driving

This comparison is based on the maximum capacity of a general traffic road, from figures researched by Transport for London.

Since this article is about moving people, the assumption is that all traffic will be made up of passenger cars, with 1.5 people per car.

Taxi

Taxis, especially those which are hailed on demand (known as black cabs or Hackney carriages in the UK) are the least efficient form of transport when it comes to road space used for movement. This is because, like private cars, they are mostly used to move one person at a time, but also because they spend a huge amount of their time cruising around empty, looking for business. This means that the overall occupancy for taxis in London is just 0.8 passengers. As with public transport, we’re not counting the driver!

However, just because taxis are inefficient in their own right, they still have an important role to play in an integrated transport system, because a short taxi journey to the station can enable a longer one by train. Also, although they can take up space on a rank, taxis don’t spend all day parked like so many private cars used for commuting do. However, parking space is a topic for another post.

Points for debate

At the end of the day, this is just a meme about moving people through space. Another one will follow about “movement per lane”, which will also consider the realistic travel speeds, hence total people x kilometres moved per lane per hour.

But ultimately, moving people is one part of the equation. How much energy is needed to move each person, and what impact that has on the local air quality is another.

Then there is also the question of the quality of the street itself. If one method of moving people is very space efficient, but it’s a little slow, is that such a bad thing if it still gets the job done? Is it better to move people through a busy shopping street in a constant stream of standard buses, or is it better to move them together in an articulated bus or tram? Of course, it’s better still to move them under or over the street in question, and that is also a matter for another comparison, because grade separation (running a stream of traffic under or over the street) might have huge advantages for the street itself, but it’s also hugely expensive compared to running along the surface.

Is it Lego or Legos?

Well, for starters, this post is written using Dragon naturally speaking, which in theory will only use words (including proper nouns) which it considers to be correct in either British or American English.

Rightly or wrongly, as far as Dragon is concerned, Legos is a correct term, and of course it’s widely used across North America. Since Dragon will not accept popular mis-spellings, this makes Legos absolutely valid in terms of “common” usage. However, usage alone doesn’t make a term correct

If the plural is acceptable in American English, but it’s never used in British English, is the American English usage simply acceptable because American English often tends to be a lot more logical, and in this sense, if you can have one Lego, i.e. a single brick, then building any kind of structure out of 2 or more Lego bricks would indeed mean that you are using Legos, are you not?

Except of course that this question should be about British or American English usage, but about the usage of a product which might have British origins, but which is ultimately Danish. Lego is a contraction of a Danish phrase leg godt meaning “play well”.

Logically speaking, you cannot have “play wells” in the plural – the name quite logically implies that the act of playing has to involve multiple bricks, because a single brick wouldn’t be anything worth playing with.

The whole beauty of Lego is not so much that you might have a single much loved brick or toy to play with (for that, there are plenty of other toy or model manufacturers like Corgi or Dinky cars or Hornby trains), but that the process of playing or creating is constant and ongoing.

Therefore, even if as a British English speaker I might know perfectly well what an American English speaker means when they talk of Legos, it isn’t really a correct usage. Furthermore, it is actually relegating Lego to the same status as any other toy, and no fanatic can accept that!

Since @plasticplanners has been set up to use Lego in a creative fashion to educate immature adults, it is a distinction we think is worth making from time to time.

On the other hand, we really don’t need to get that beat up about this – if a pile of plastic bricks can be used to create anything, does it really matter if language is twisted around a bit and used slightly incorrectly? I don’t think it’s really all that important, but I would like to think that if I was actually writing this article on the other side of the pond, that I would still use the correct term Lego.

On a similar note, this account has been set up as the “plastic planners” – not “Lego transport” or anything similar, because this is an entirely unofficial fan website, and it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the Lego group, or any of their trademarks.

Why so much Focus on Cycling?

Why so much focus on cycling?

Is @plasticplanners really just a cycling blog?

No – but when it comes to matters of comparing transport modes, or looking at road safety, cycling is the focus of a lot of our memes.

This is mainly because cycling also provides a lot of other leverage towards making cities better for all users. For starters, measures which are often developed in the name of cycling will nearly always improve the environment for pedestrians. Whilst this is especially the case for measures to reduce speeds,  block out rat running and cut out through traffic, the addition of cycle lanes on major through roads also helps to create a buffer between the pavement (sidewalk) and the main roadway. Meanwhile, junction improvements to facilitate cycling will also improve crossing for pedestrians.

But what about cyclist v pedestrian conflict?

There has been a lot of attention on some of the new cycling developments in London, and in particular a focus on measures such as bus stop bypasses, which are often massively misunderstood by people who oppose their installation. One of the planned street scenes which will be coming soon will feature a before and after, and also a general comparison between having bus stop bypasses and not having them. This should show very clearly why well-planned measures to improve cycling benefit not just pedestrians, but also public transport users.

Does cycling harm public transport?

German studies have shown that when cycling rates go up, most of this uptake comes from people who were previously driving, and that although there is some shifting from public transport to cycling, there is also a similar shift from driving to public transport, or simply from driving to a combination of cycling and public transport.

Challenge us!

The plastic planners simply offer an open challenge for anyone to name us a city which has a high cycling rates (10% or above) and which either has very low walking rates, or very low public transport usage.

We simply aren’t aware of such a city anywhere in the world!

Are Transport Planners and Campaigners Anti-car?

Are Transport Planners and Campaigners Anti-car?

No!

Car-based planning policies are anti-car, and they have been for decades!

Any self-respecting transport planner will tell you something along the lines of:

“Cities which only plan for private car usage end up with traffic chaos and a road network which pleases nobody, whereas cities which plan for all types of transport please all types of transport users, including car drivers”.

Of course, this is a very simplistic generalisation. cities can enact measures solely designed to restrict car usage, without actually improving other means, or they can improve transit without necessarily restricting driving. This is especially the case if a city already has a substantial but under-used railway network.

The ideas shared by @plasticplanners are no different to the ideas which you will find from leading exponents of sustainable urban planning, whether they are architects or engineers themselves, whether they are councillors or council highways chiefs who “get it” as such, or whether they are simply advocates or advocacy organisations calling for cities which are fit for the humans who live in them.

The only difference here is that @plasticplanners uses Lego as a tool to express these ideas.

Anti-car is no doubt a theme which will run and run here. The reality is that anyone who expresses a view that goes against the current status quo can probably be labelled as “anti-car”.

To look at a country which has managed to please both motorists and non-motorists alike (because in reality most of the population is both), then it’s best to look at Dutch transport policy. Are the Dutch anti-car because they have such high cycling rates, and public transport is excellent? This really isn’t the case at the national level, but in some cities, notably in historic centres where space is at a premium, heavy restrictions have been placed on car usage. However, with parking still provided, if at the edge of these centres, or further out with park and ride, even the most restricted Dutch cities can’t really be called “anti-car”.

How much energy does it take to create 1kg of Lego?

Or more to the point – are we hypocritical for doing this?

Yes we are!

In order to have the flexibility to create a range of different scenes, the @plasticplanners use a home studio which basically has a single shelving unit full of Lego which takes up a whole wall on one side of the room, and comprises around 50,000 individual Lego bricks.

In total, these bricks weigh around 50 kg, and although I don’t know exactly how much energy is needed to produce each brick, it would be reasonable to assume that 1 kg of Lego requires a lot more than 1 kg of oil, but let’s say the ratio is 10 to 1 – then that would be in the region of 500 L.

I have tried looking up a precise figure, but I can’t find one. The Lego company are making efforts to go “oil (or petrochemical) free”, but there’s nothing on the exact usage.

This collection has taken several years to amass, and most of it has been bought second hand as 1 kg job lots on eBay, so I am effectively just reusing bricks that other people no longer need or want. Needless to say, there is still energy consumption from postage and packing.

Some older pieces date back to the 1960s, so they are over 50 years old.

I sell on any surplus bricks that aren’t going to be used in these scenes, because I only need Lego city / town type bricks.

It would be reasonable to estimate that my oil usage for @plasticplannersoperation is somewhere around 100 L per year.

In comparison, the average British car travels around 10,000 miles per year, with an average combined cycle fuel consumption at around 50 miles per gallon, consuming around 200 gallons or 1000 L.

So very roughly speaking, the plastic planners has an oil consumption that this would suggest is about 10% of running the average UK family car, or that is possibly the equivalent of one very short flight (e.g. London to Manchester) .

I would like to think that is a carbon footprint that is worth making in order to share ideas which already now have a global following and have been translated into over 20 different languages.

But of course, for most people this stuff is just a toy. Most household collections are probably closer to 10,000 bricks than 50. So let’s put it another way – how long does a litre or gallon of petrol last in your tank? You can burn a gallon of fuel in an hour of motorway driving in reasonable conditions. If that could also get you a small Lego set, even if it’s a Lego car or plane, then I think we can be sure it is going to last a lot longer than that.

There was no traffic light invention, only a motor light

The traffic light seems to have developed over a number of years, but the invention is perhaps best credited to policeman Lester Wire in Salt Lake City in 1912. He was the first person tocreate a “traffic light”, which controlled flows using a red and green signla device, as opposed to by semaphore.

But what if there was a world without traffic lights, or perhaps a town without them? This isn’t about implementing the faddish shared space ideology, but this is about looking at a simple practical way in which road networks could be built without space conflict between different user types.

As it happens, this town does indeed already exist. The “no traffic light town” was indeed invented in the early 1980s, and since then it has been extended to encompass a populuation of around 50,000 people. The town is Houten in the Netherlands, just to the south of Utrecht.

So how does a traffic light free town work – does it mean no cars at all? Far from it! houten is a two car family type of town, built to act as an overflow suburb, and built with an extensive ring road that provides fast access throughout the region. But the clever bit is that drivers can only access each zone from the edge of the figure of 8 ring road. Pedestrians and cyclists can go between any zone, and they can also cross the ring road by going over or under it, but they never have to go along it, nor do they have to cross it on the surface – hence no traffic lights!

So in areas where there is mixing between all the different road user types, it’s always low volumes of small vehicles driven at low speeds.

Where the cycle paths meet in the park, there are of course, no lights! They were never removed, they just weren’t installed in the first place! This isn’t a fad, the town has continued to grow, yet no such lights have been installed. Why would there be?

Scale this up further to any large city, and there are still no traffic lights on any pedestrian or cycle path anywhere in the world, if you take the motor traffic out of the equation. So there you go – there really is no such thing as a traffic light – only a motor light!

Always wear your sofa helmet!

This isn’t going to be a long post, just a few notes to go with the image – “always wear your sofa helmet”.

Why?

Because sitting still is very dangerous! You mean because the roof might fall in? No, that’s extremely unlikely – but sedentary lifestyles are one of the biggest threats facing industrialised society today.

Enough said – I need to get out myself!

 

 

How to get rid of annoying cyclists

If only there was some kind of magical way that you, the hard-working, road tax paying, only-slightly-over-the-limit driving motorist could wave a magic wand and then suddenly get rid of all of those annoying cyclists that you see as you go about your daily business, especially on a Sunday!

Annoying cyclists - if you want to see us that way!
Annoying cyclists – if you want to see us that way!

Oh there is?

Yes, absolutely! Of course there is!

Get rid of annoying cyclists in an instant!

It’s as simple as this – take all those annoying cyclists, and remove the first word, you know, the one about them being annoying.

There you go, now you just have cyclists.

Let’s do this again!

Annoying cyclists!

There you go!

Like you, they are going about their everyday business. Like you, the chances are, that they are probably drivers as well, it’s just that right now, they are riding their bikes.

But they are still there, right?

Absolutely! Cyclists have the same right to use the roads that you do – no more, no less, apart from the small fact that cyclists are able to use the road regardless, whereas you as a driver are only able to keep driving on licence, and by driving a vehicle that has passed its MOT test, and is suitably insured for you to be driving it.

Fair?

So it’s not fair, is it? You have to share the road with cyclists who aren’t required to have any licence or insurance, and who also pay no direct taxes towards the upkeep of the roads that they are cycling on.

Now what you want to do about it? You could go on to 38degrees and start yet another petition calling for all these things to be changed, or you could just accept this one simple reality – the reason why driving is regulated and cycling is not is because you the driver, or more specifically the car that you the driver drive has the most potential to do so much more harm.

No exemptions, just the way it is

Cyclists don’t have any kind of special exemption, they are simply regulated according to their position in the road user chain – one up from pedestrians and one below scooters and motorbikes. Unlike pedestrians, cyclists are still required to not just obey the highway code, but to obey road signs, and yes, to obey traffic lights.

But, but, but – you see cyclists jumping red lights all the time, don’t you? That’s largely because you choose to see it and then amplify it, just as you’ll probably choose to ignore all the much more dangerous speeding that is done by drivers, and you’ll probably ignore other drivers texting or using their phone when they drive – because you don’t do this yourself, except when you really need to, like when you need to call home to say that you’ll be 5 minutes late because there’s been a bit more traffic than you expected, right?

Spreading the jam

What do you think caused the traffic jam in the first place – cyclists; drivers already stuck in traffic jams and texting; or just too many drivers in the first place? Whichever way you look at it, it’s your fellow drivers who are causing traffic jams most of the time. But don’t believe me, I’m just a plastic figure from Denmark, what should I know?

As smooth as plastic

Except that the Danish capital, Copenhagen, actually has the lowest levels of congestion of any major European capital city – right on a par with Amsterdam, and Budapest. Now what have 2 out of these 3 cities got in common? Yes, that’s right, they’ve got lots and lots of cyclists, but very low levels of congestion, exactly as you will find in most other Danish or Dutch cities. The reasons for this are very simple – bikes take up less space than cars, that’s all!

So there you go – I’m sorry if I’ve been a bit preachy on this one, but I’m writing this on a Sunday afternoon, and I’ve been out earlier to have a nice bike ride, but unfortunately, there’s always one or two irate motorists like yourself who get in the way of my enjoyment. I can’t choose to ignore you when you are tailgating me from just 10 (Lego) paces behind, just as I can’t ignore you when you pass me too closely – these are things that you can do which really do put me in danger.

Annoying Cyclists are just in your head

You on the other hand can choose to stop getting annoyed by the everyday cyclist who just wants to get somewhere. I’m sure you want to get somewhere too. So the more cyclists there are, the quicker you will get where you need to get to, however you choose to get there.

Happy driving!

Will the Wasp (who is actually just a normal every day Lego person who just happens to be cycling to a fancy dress party)

Force of a vehicle Physics

These meme looks at the risks imposed on other road users by different types of movement, including walking, cycling and driving a heavy SUV (or Chelsea Tractor as they are more accurately known).

Working:

USER  MASS (KG)  SPEED (MPH)  KMH   M/S   1/2MV2   BRICKS 
PEDESTRIAN                80 4             6         2                      126                      1
CYCLIST              100 12           19         5                   1,422                    14
SUV           2,250 45           72       20              450,000              4,500

This is based on:

  • A pedestrian walking briskly at 4mph, weighing 80kg with any bags.
  • A cyclist at 12mph (typical urban speed), weighing 100kg with bike and equipment / bags.
  • A heavy SUV (eg Toyota Highlander Hybrid), weighing 2,000kg + 250kg for occupants and luggage.

Speeds are based on typical urban speeds on an arterial road, which might have a speed limit of 40 mph (UK typical), and where drivers will be typically exceeding that by around 5 mph.

A Lego 2×1 standard brick weighs just lessthan 1g (14 weigh 10g). The brick in the photo weighs 4.5kg. The comparisons are based on weight rather than volume. A comparison based on volume (ie using actual Lego bricks to make a “real” brick) would result in a much larger “brick” for the SUV.